May 22, 2006

A Question For Tim Russert

Since there is a chance he will be caught outside of his protective cocoon while doing promotional interviews, I wanted to prepare a simple question for Tim, with the goal of clearing up once and for all any lingering confusion about his role in the Valerie Plame case.

With any luck a moment may come when the chit-chat about the new book lags a bit and some intrepid interviewer, casting about for a conversational hook, asks this question. And I welcome feedback - let's sharpen the question together down in the comments.

[UPDATE: Was that first attempt I offered a question or a filibuster? Good point! Here is something quicker:

Mr Russert - without any hedging about whether you actually knew her name, did you mention Ambassador Wilson's wife to Lewis Libby when you talked with him just prior to the Robert Novak column? Or had you heard unconfirmed rumors about Wilson's wife?]

Here we go with some background, phrased as a question in the event that Tim is handcuffed to the stage:

Tim, last summer and fall you were criticized for not being forthcoming about your role in the Valerie Plame investigation. Apparently you talked to Lewis Libby (who is now under indictment), and his version of your conversation is different from yours - he claims that you told him "all the reporters knew" that Ambassador Wilson's wife was at the CIA, and you apparently, testified to something different. So different, in fact, that it is now one of the perjury counts against Libby.

However, the NY Times and various critics noted that your actual public denial was a little elusive - you said, and I am quoting the NBC News press release, that you "did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that [you] did not provide that information to Mr. Libby".

What your criticspointed out, without a response, was that publicly denying knowledge of her name and that she was a CIA operative is not at all the same as denying that you told Libby that Wilson's wife, whose name may have been unknown to you, worked at the CIA in a role unknown to you.

And let's just blurt out a question:

So, could you clear that up for us now - prior to reading Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, had you heard rumors or allegations that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in some capacity? And did you mention this possibility to Libby?

Thanks very much.

Now, I am not optimistic we will get a clear answer. And some may wonder why I even ask - as I argued last fall, despite his public coyness, Russert did give a deposition to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, who did return an indictment in part on the strength of Russert's testimony. Surely, one might have thought, if the prosecutor was satisfied that was the end of it.

But now I wonder - a recent court filing excerpted a bit of Russert's deposition and guess what? The same odd construction, denying knowledge of her name, appears in the deposition. Here we go, excerpting from a May 8, 2006 motion to quash a subpoena of Andrea Mitchell (p. 3):

In his deposition, describing Plame’s
employment as a fact that would have been “[v]ery” significant to him –
one he would have discussed with NBC management and potentially sought
to broadcast – Russert stated, “I have no recollection of knowing that
[Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA], so it was impossible for me to have
[told Libby] that.” Asked to describe his “reaction” to Novak’s July 14
column, Russert said, “Wow. When I read that – it was the first time I
knew who Joe Wilson’s wife was and that she was a CIA operative…. [I]t
was news to me.”

That appeared in a footnote to this opinion in the Miller subpoena case (p. 73) which was released with eight previously redacted pages restored in December 2005.

So - without knowing just what is in those ellipses, I am back to wondering if, just maybe, Sly Old Tim slipped one past Patrick Fitzgerald. His goal would have been to avoid disclosing any actual source for a such a leak. (If I had to guess, I'd say Russert was actually protecting Andrea Mitchell - chivalry isn't dead.)

Russert has a law degree, stage presence, and a great reputation, so this little ploy is hardly beyond his ability. And the best speculation is that Libby called Russert to complain about Chris Matthews coverage of Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, so it is not as if a comment about Wilson's wife would have come out of the blue.

But why speculate? Someone ought to ask him.

MORE: Various carefully crafted and eerily similar Russert denials here.

STILL MORE: "I have no recollection of knowing" she was at the CIA, said Mr. Russert. Well, fine, but so what? I have a specific recollection of *NOT* knowing whether Russert discussed Wilson's wife with Libby, yet I am still able to articulate a question about it (subject, of course, to a charitable definition of "articulate".)

So, does Russert's testimony hinge on what it means to "know" something? *IF* Russert had heard rumors about a spousal link - if, for example, Andrea Mitchell had said to Russert, "I have heard a rumor that Wilson's wife is at the CIA and was involved with his trip but I can't confirm it" - would Russert "know" that it was true? I think he would recollect knowing that it was an unconfirmed rumor.

But as a journalistic tactic, feigning superior knowledge to induce a subject to open up is well-established. Can one imagine Russert, once he happens to have Libby on the line, saying, "C'mon, Scooter, all the reporters know about Wilson's wife, you're not keeping a secret, tell me about it".

Oddly, I can imagine just that. But I don't know it.

Furthermore, the rest of Russert's story, in which he describes the actions he would have taken if he had "known" about a link, is irrelevant in the "stray rumor" scenario - is he really suggesting that if he had heard one stray accouint of a spousal link, he would have alerted the top brass, and so on? Why wouldn't he file it somewhere in his mental "To Be Checked Out" list? Or does he immediately discuss every rumor he hears with NBC management? Please.

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Russert forgot! It just was not that important to him, so all he knows now is that he did not do other things, such as alerting his boss, that would have been appropriate if he "knew". But can he rule out the "stray rumor" scenario? Not really, since he can't remember forgetting something that maybe he never knew.

That may help him duck a perjury charge, but... if he forgot, maybe Libby did too.

"Look, Little Russ, you have danced all around the question. Tell us, Little Russ, were you aware before Novak printed that Wilson was married to anyone, regardless of name, and were you aware she worked at some capacity for the government?"

Mr Russert, As someone who attended the same college as my husband and has been jesuit educated as a good catholic tell us if you were covering for Andrea Mitchell and say it ain't so that you knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"""will you tell us that, prior to reading Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, you had not heard rumors, heard allegations or asked questions about the possibility that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in some capacity? """

Or did you here the 'Wilsons wife' was involved in him 'being sent to Niger'...even if they didn't mentioned she was employed by the CIA by name.

Hey Timmy, Regarding Andrea Mitchells comment when she admitted valerie Plame was well known to reporters in her circles..

Is Andrea a ditzy blonde who doesn't understand simple and direct questions and tends to make fanciful false comments to her audience?

Did you reprimand Andrea for making the false statements or did NBC News in any way
tell the viewers on air that Andrea just had a giant brain fart and had actually never heard of Plame until the Novak article??

Do you believe she is fit to be a reporter since you apparently believe she just makes stuff up??

Or does that just put her on par with the jounalistic integrity of Shuster and Mathews.

And hey Tim when Chris Mathews tells his audience for the one thousand time that Bush and Cheney should have listened to Wilson....shouldn't he also concede that Bush and Cheney DID listen to Wilson, because Wilson said repeatedly not only did Saddam possess WMDs, but that he would use them against us.

When everybody is parsing (and we are!), I'm not sure you can get the info you're looking for with a single question.

I'd use short specific questions. "Rumors or allegations" sound like free wiggle room to me. For example, if we're being technical (and we are!), speculation is neither rumor nor allegation.

Before asking about the kind of thing he might have heard, I'd want to establish that he had, indeed, heard of/about Wilson's wife (or even met her), regardless of context (which may, in fact, have been social). Something along the lines of:

Prior to your conversation with Libby, was Mrs. Wilson, whether by name or other designation ever mentioned by you or in your presence by colleagues/acquaintances/family?

I'd certainly ask if he and/or his wife had ever met/knew Mrs. Wilson before the Libby conversation.

First, and foremost though, I'd want to establish that the subject of the Ambassador actually did come up with Libby:

When you spoke to Libby (on or about...) did either of you refer to Joe Wilson or his wife in any fashion?

Russert does not remember. There's no point in asking him whether he told Libby or not, he doesn't remember. He also will not admit that he doesn't remember. He is just assuming he didn't know Wilson's wife worked at CIA because he would have told someone else if he new that. He doesn't remember THAT either.

------

Mr. Russert, is it true that you neither remember your conversation with Libby nor remember whether you knew Wilson's wife worked at CIA at that time?

And is it true that you assume you didn't know about Wilson's wife because you assume you would have acted on that information?

Therefore is it true that you assume you did not tell Libby that fact?

Syl, that about sums up the state of the evidence! On the plus side for Team Libby, the defense really only has to get Russert to say "I don't remember" once. His memory, not his character, is precisely what they'll be trying to impeach.

It's worth noting that Fitzgerald has taken into account the possibility that Russert said something about Wilson's wife to Libby. His case does not depend on it. Indeed, his response to Libby's third motion to compel discovery says on p.11:

The central issue at trial wil be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert about Mr. Wilson's wife on or about July 10, 2003.

This swings free of whether or not Russert told him something about Plame. Maybe there will be a twofer: Russert will be shown to be a deep misleader, to his everlasting shame, and Libby will still shown to have been lying.

Jeff:
hang on to your notion that Libby lied because quite frankly I think that's all you've got. You can't see this case any other way. Even I am reluctant to blame Russert but just how fast he testified without any fanfare or hoopla gives me pause. I agree with Syl ;I think he really can't remember all of it but was he aware of the Wilsons and did he travel in their social circles-OH Yeah!

when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert

Perhaps you have a more complete version of the transcript than I've seen because that's only one of several intepretations of Libby's comments. If there isn't something clearer than "as if for the first time", Libby will likely be able to explain that away.

To paraphrase Clarice, Fitz should have asked: "At the time you spoke to Russert, did you know Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? Yes or no please."

If Fitz didn't clarify the point it looks a lot like he thought he got something prosecutable and stopped because it was too good to check.

It's worth noting that Fitzgerald has taken into account the possibility that Russert said something about Wilson's wife to Libby. His case does not depend on it.

It's a good thing Fitz's case doesn't rely on it.

Or on other things like:

who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years

Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter

Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium.

he knew or should have known it was classified

Those annotations support the proposition

The June 2003 New Republic article is relevant

Further, several of these are misleading or misstate the applicable law as well. For example: "covert work" is meaningless; "not widely known" is irrelevant, as is "should have known" and Libby's reluctance to speak of Wilson's (then-classified) trip in June, '03. Fitz's reliance on red herrings and flat falsehoods makes one wonder why, if his case is so good, he can't tell it straight. (A concept you'd think those on the left would embrace.)

Cecil - I can't figure out what your point is. Some of those things you enumerate will be part of the case, some will be unless the judge rules them out, others won't be, and then there is a mistake and an error, neither of which will play a role in the case. So?

It's like the errors in the NYT's reports. Whistle when they print a factually false report which inures to the Administration's benefit--In other words all thes misstatements are anti-Libby and the Administration. And many like the Cheney annotations lack probative value at all and will not be admitted into the trial, but so seem to be misrepresentations designed to smear Libby and the Vice President,

Cecil -
1 was made in the context of the ongoing investigation, so I don't see what it has to do with the context of the prosecution of Libby. 2 I'm a little unclear on, but it will be a part of the prosecution of Libby, barring an adverse ruling from the judge. 3 Fitzgerald will attempt to prove at the trial. 4 was a double mistake, Fitzgerald failed to qualify the point the second time around, and it has turned out that Libby was not the first. 5 was an error which Fitzgerald corrected quickly (which I agree was not quickly enough - it never should have happened). 6 will, I take it, play a role in the trial, and be subject to proof. 7 i don't see the problem; you may disagree but that's what we have a trial for, and this will be a part of it, no - unless Walton rules that article inadmissable or whatever. Same goes with 8.

If the case is so very weak, why does Bush allow it to continue? Certainly, Bush has the ultimate prosecutorial authority here.
Forget a pardon; Bush could just end it today by ordering the prosecution dropped.

He can't be worried about taking a hit in the polls. Dems will scream? please.

And if they're so ready to give up Libby on such a non-case, does that mean Libby was a dispensable chief of staff or is Bush/Cheney too intimidated to shut the thing down and grab him back. If the latter why?

I have a problem with "proof" that Libby "lied" about not knowing about Plame while talking to Russert. Fitzgerald can prove that people talked about her in Libby's presence, or that he saw a report that discussed her, but that doesn't mean that he was paying attention. Even if he was paying attention it doesn't mean that he thought it was important enough to forget other vital national security information in order to make room to remember this piece of gossip. People ignore things all the time. People listen/read and pay attention while the discussion is happening but then discard the information all the time. We spend vast amounts of time, money, attention, and angst on education of all kinds at all levels and we know that even when people desperately want to learn and retain knowledge they have to work very hard to do so successfully.

What Libby's statements seem to say is that while he may have heard about the wifey gossip beforehand from government employees, he only learned and retained the wifey gossip when a reporter told it to him. I have seen no sign at all that Fitzgerald has any evidence at all that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what Libby claims happened could not have happened. Fitzgerald's "evidence" is that he didn't come up with any confirmation of what Libby says. But not coming up with confirmation is way different than coming up with proof of the opposite -- especially when your "investigation" didn't look very hard one way or the other.

And was nonsensical: "covert" has a particular meaning in this context, and that isn't it. It appeared to be part of his argument as to why this was important enough to hold Miller in contempt . . . and Tatel, at least, bought it.

6 will, I take it, play a role in the trial, and be subject to proof.

It seems to me Fitz claims it needn't be. "If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it's not a defense if you lie . . ." But besides that, the standard for leaking classified information is "known."

7 i don't see the problem; you may disagree but that's what we have a trial for, and this will be a part of it, no - unless Walton rules that article inadmissable or whatever. Same goes with 8.

7 How annotations Libby never saw can possibly affect his state of mind is a bit of a mystery to me. 8 Likewise, a conversation about Wilson's trip being classified proves nothing about whether Libby thought his wife's status was likewise sensitive.

Jeff, quoting Fitz: The central issue at trial will be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert about Mr. Wilson's wife on or about July 10, 2003.

If prior has its usual meaning, then this is claiming that Libby testified that the conversation with Russert was the first time he'd heard Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. That seems to be contradicted by Libby's "as if for the first time" statement:

And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.

The phrase "at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known" is inconsistant with the notion that Libby was saying he actually had never known.

Perhaps Jeff will claim Fitzgerald has some more definitive statement by Libby that he's holding back. However, if I correctly recall the law, as a matter of due process in a perjury charge the allegedly perjurious statements must be set forth in the indictment, so that seems unlikely.

The question I would put to Russert would be about this from his conversation with Andrea Mitchell Oct 29, 05:

"I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'"

I'd ask him, if, a few days earlier, when he talked by phone with Libby, did he mention anything about 'everyone [is] trying to figure out' what's up with Wilson's wife being at the CIA?